Articlegreen2015

Comparison of a Commercial Accelerometer with Polysomnography and Actigraphy in Children and Adolescents

Lisa J. Meltzer · Laura Hiruma · Kristin T. Avis · Hawley E. Montgomery‐Downs · Judith Valentin

228 citations0/0 files storedSLEEP

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the commercially available Fitbit Ultra (2012) accelerometer compared to polysomnography (PSG) and two different actigraphs in a pediatric sample. DESIGN AND SETTING: All subjects wore the Fitbit Ultra while undergoing overnight clinical polysomnography in a sleep laboratory; a randomly selected subset of participants also wore either the Ambulatory Monitoring Inc. Motionlogger Sleep Watch (AMI) or Phillips-Respironics Mini-Mitter Spectrum (PRMM). PARTICIPANTS: 63 youth (32 females, 31 males), ages 3-17 years (mean 9.7 years, SD 4.6 years). MEASUREMENTS: Both "Normal" and "Sensitive" sleep-recording Fitbit Ultra modes were examined. Outcome variables included total sleep time (TST), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and sleep efficiency (SE). Primary analyses examined the differences between Fitbit Ultra and PSG using repeated-measures ANCOVA, with epoch-by-epoch comparisons between Fitbit Ultra and PSG used to determine sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Intra-device reliability, differences between Fitbit Ultra and actigraphy, and differences by both developmental age group and sleep disordered breathing (SDB) status were also examined. RESULTS: Compared to PSG, the Normal Fitbit Ultra mode demonstrated good sensitivity (0.86) and accuracy (0.84), but poor specificity (0.52); conversely, the Sensitive Fitbit Ultra mode demonstrated adequate specificity (0.79), but inadequate sensitivity (0.70) and accuracy (0.71). Compared to PSG, the Fitbit Ultra significantly overestimated TST (41 min) and SE (8%) in Normal mode, and underestimated TST (105 min) and SE (21%) in Sensitive mode. Similar differences were found between Fitbit Ultra (both modes) and both brands of actigraphs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its low cost and ease of use for consumers, neither sleep-recording mode of the Fitbit Ultra accelerometer provided clinically comparable results to PSG. Further, pediatric sleep researchers and clinicians should be cautious about substituting these devices for validated actigraphs, with a significant risk of either overestimating or underestimating outcome data including total sleep time and sleep efficiency.

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 228 citations exist upstream.

References

1986STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT 1965Akufo and Ibarapa 1983Measurement in Medicine: The Analysis of Method Comparison Studies 1994Activity-Based Sleep-Wake Identification: An Empirical Test of Methodological Issues 2011The role and validity of actigraphy in sleep medicine: An update 2007Practice Parameters for the Use of Actigraphy in the Assessment of Sleep and Sleep Disorders: An Update for 2007 2001Comparison of actigraphic, polysomnographic, and subjective assessment of sleep parameters in sleep-disordered patients 2007The AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events : Rules

Cited by

2017Real-time assessment of suicidal thoughts and behaviors 2016Measures of sleep and cardiac functioning during sleep using a multi-sensory commercially-available wristband in adolescents 2017Orthosomnia: Are Some Patients Taking the Quantified Self Too Far?2020Sleep Tracking of a Commercially Available Smart Ring and Smartwatch Against Medical-Grade Actigraphy in Everyday Settings: Instrument Validation Study 2016Consumer sleep tracking devices: a review of mechanisms, validity and utility

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.